slngsht

I must have a dirty mind LOL

I'm not religious at all, but a little googling turns up some explanations: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120430072818AAxaUgg

This might fall under politics, religion and controversy. I'll move it there.

This is much much more reasonable. It's actually a repeal of the EMTALA (another example of gov involvement having consequences, even though it was well meaning) - with addition of a baseline catastrophic insurance option.

What if a private organization, such as a church or other charity chooses to provide service to those in need? Is this acceptable to you? or does it have to go through government? ... and as people continue to find out how ACA impacts their lives, the old system won't look all that bad.

LOL at your registration woes. "So, when I finally pack in the job, I'll select a high deduct plan, and be a cash customer at the doctor's office, lab, etc. The plan will be for catastrophic coverage only." The combo you're describing here is essentially what many people are considering as concierge medicine, and I think it's a great idea. All that was needed to make this happen was for state level legislation regarding pre-existing conditions, and no other requirements. Insurance companies would solve this on their own by offering no frills high deductible insurance. This would work fine without the social engineering aspects of the ACA.

This is a good summary of the issue (start at page 3 for the significant part): http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8332.pdf

Supreme court only ruled on the issue before it. In doing so, the court judged the individual mandate is a tax. This issue will end up there again, due to article 1, section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Of course, this is not how the ACA made it through congress.

The federal government is supposed to have limited power. Constitution grants those powers, and specifically states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th amendment. Results of elections do not trump the constitution. not that it bothers this administration. Where does the federal government get its power to tell the individual they have to purchase something? It all comes down to this: Do you believe the Constitution is still a relevant document that needs to be followed - and if not adequate, amended? Or do you believe it should be set aside and ignored?

I'm downright certifiable Tom :lol:

1. Nobody is saying it is. 2. Why is this the business of the Federal government? 3. What is the definition of a "death squad"? That's a very dramatic term. RIGHT NOW, if you have a plan and a doctor who is successfully treating you for cancer, and you got your cancelation letter and can't get the same team, nobody is condemning you to death, but your care is affected. 4. True. 5. I'm here... not on any government program (other than IRS contributor). I'm complaining. Now, here are some of my questions: 1. Does it require me to get services I don't want? 2. How does the federal government gain the authority to tell me I have to buy a service I do not wish to buy? What are some other examples of this? Following the ACA logic, there is study after study that shows children need stable families to reach their full potential. The cost to our society in terms of crime, welfare, loss of productivity for children without stable families is ASTRONOMICAL. Therefore, federal government should step in and solve this problem for the greater good. Many options are available - like terminating babies to single moms, forcing the biological parents to marry, or the always popular option of forcing wealthy families to raise the kids. Would you support such a program? It will benefit us all. How about CAFE standards? Instead of setting corporate guidelines, wouldn't it be more effective to tell individuals what rules they have to follow? Every family with income over $100K must have a hybrid car before they can buy a SUV. Of course these are crazy examples. But in terms of federal government authority, how are these different than forcing health care coverage on us?

anyone who still thinks ACA is a good idea, given who is implementing it, how it was passed, and what we know about it today, watch this and dispute each and every one of the points made here. Do it with data, not emotions. http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=90510&sitesection=youngcons&VID=25379751

This creates another group of formerly independent citizens who now find they have to depend on government subsidies, with all the strings attached. Not to mention simple transfer of wealth. And then there is more transfer of power to an absolutely corrupt federal government. Not my definition of better than nothing, but nobody is going to change anyone's mind. :cheers:

Wow, glad driver and passenger walked away

Due to our healthcare system? Jumping to a lot of conclusions there.

Doesn't it speak for itself? :rofl: I'd have a conversation with whoever wants to have it, but someone will get here and blow a gasket.

Seems like a lot of work to get 20 views. Gary, I've heard from a couple of members about this now. :toetap05:

When I had a running seven, I put my foot behind the clutch.

Interest, yes, car that can get me there, maybe :lol: Maybe after my move it'll be a priority again

I've never taken the travel or relocation option. No regrets. Everyone's situation is different though. My younger son is mildly autistic and the stress on our family life is just not worth it for me. There's really no wrong decision if there is a financial benefit for your trouble.

pretty cool.

man, that sucks

Morgan, list the questions I did not answer. I didn't contest your explanation for that NY pressure cooker story. What else? It's funny that libs have totally made the Zimmerman case about race. If I expect a black person to act like everyone else, I'm racist. You laugh at the notion that a black person is able to call the police, and that's not racist. Regarding the media, they gave full coverage to this case, ignoring hundreds of other murders of black kids - there is no race angle on those to divide us. NBC totally edited the 911 tape to make it appear Zimmerman targeted a black kid. All the early pics in the media were from Trayvon when he was a little kid. You think these are innocent mistakes? Try answering without calling me names. And list your points that I didn't answer. If I changed the subject, let me know what I was supposed to talk about :-)

Discussing anything with you is a waste of time. You might feel the same. I'm totally fine with that. Note AGAIN I'm trying to end the discussion in a civil way.

Morgan, your arguments always end up with name calling. Not to worry, I have more class than that. :-)